Tag Archives: women

Confession: I’ve developed a bad habit since I started this blog. My eyes and ears are always opened to any and all issues that I think might be relevant to bring up in this forum. So basically, and I think I’ve mentioned this here in the past, no conversation or passing comment related to women and men goes unnoticed when I’m around. It may very well end up on this blog. Names and places will always be left off but you might recognize yourself – you’ve been warned.

I was at a dinner the other day and for a time much of the attention was focused around this young child, who was sweetly interacting with one of the other dinner guests. Some of the other guests were commenting to each other about how cute this young boy was, and he really was, and cooing about the way he was dressed and the way he was interacting with the other guest. Then a comment from one of the side conversations caught my attention. “I really want to have all boys, girls are just too much drama”, I overheard one of my friends say. The others around her nodded and spoke up in agreement, interjecting their own brief statements of why boys were preferable to girls. Boys were easy to dress, girls wouldn’t let their moms dress them, boys are more easy going, girls are high maintenance – basically boys > girls.

As I sat there listening to some people I consider to be pretty amazing women, who would raise terrific women themselves, I couldn’t help but wonder, where were they getting these idea from? And why was everyone so readily agreeing? Did no one think this mass generalization of boys and girls was a bit of an oversimplification of reality? Not every social situation lends itself to serious conversation about the forces that are acting upon us and causing us to accept certain beliefs as fact so I figured this was perhaps not the time in which to bring up the questions above.

This conversation actually reminded me of an article that I think has been going around from Yashar Ali, published on the Huffington Post a few days ago. In it, Ali explains how women have been constantly portrayed as emotional, hyper-sensitive and generally crazy that it impacts not only how men view and treat women but also how women view themselves. His depiction of men interacting with women under this assumption was interesting but more interesting to me was how he was describing women who bought into this idea. He describes an encounter he had with a flight attendant in which he explained that he mainly wrote about women, which caused the flight attendant to respond, “oh, about how crazy we are?”

Much like Ali, her reaction makes me rather depressed. There is very little chance of achieving gender equality, so crucial for the advancement of civilization as a whole, if women themselves hold misconceptions about women. When I was studying ISGP’s document on the equality of women and men in Uganda, one of the women we studied the document with said that before we want to talk about how we can stop men from oppressing women, we have to deal with women oppressing women. She was right. The task of overlooking stereotypes and recognizing someone’s true identity doesn’t lie just with men interacting with women but also with women interaction with women (and men interacting with men for that matter). Essentially, you teach people how to treat you and if women can’t even support other women, why would men support women? Somehow when women can make callous and careless statements about other women it makes you realize we still have a long way to go.

I’ve asked people to contribute to this blog and write about how they try and engender equality in their own lives and a lot have said that they don’t really think they are actively contributing so they don’t have much to write about. Honestly though, if one person in that room would’ve said something, not in a confrontation way, but in a way to invite reflection, that would’ve been engendering equality. We should all take time to reflect and thus become more aware of what is influencing our understanding of gender and relationships between men and women. I think any contribution to equality between women and men requires honest reflection and the realization that our actions and our beliefs are not always perfectly synced, as well as the commitment to achieve that coherence between the two.

Every so often you are confronted with your own prejudices, the ways in which the media has shaped your thoughts. Yesterday was such a day for me. I was reading an article on the blog Feministe where the author sets up a scenario in which a female member of congress poses on the cover of a magazine wearing an unbuttoned shirt exposing her stomach and part of her breasts. She poses the scenario as a question, asking her readers, “can you believe it?” She follows that up with the clarification that we couldn’t believe it because it wasn’t true, she just made it up. Rather than a congresswoman, this scenario describes what actually happened: a congressman posing with his shirt unbuttoned, completely exposing his abdomen and chest, on the cover of Fitness magazine.

My initial reaction was to think it was horrible that anybody could think it mattered whether the situation involved a man or a woman. The problems that one would have with this type of cover should exist regardless of the gender of the member of congress in question. But upon further reflection I realized that I would think it was different. I realized I would judge a congresswoman more harshly than I judged this congressman for his magazine cover. I think this prejudice stems from the portrayal of woman’s bodies in the media. Images of scantily clad women have always had hyper-sexualized undertones so a woman on the cover of a magazine with her shirt open seems more about selling sex to me and I would wonder why I female congresswoman would want to project that image while this image of a man is questionable but doesn’t seem as overtly sexual because its about fitness.

Bothered by this realization of a double standard I asked my friend what she thought. She offered her opinion:

Re the senator, I think it’s ABSURD that he posed for this cover and I do think he’s selling sex along with fitness, but if the woman had been on the cover like that I probably would have been outraged and considered her a terrible role model for children, etc, etc. That likely is a double standard. One thing, though, is that I think I’m offended more by the woman doing it because I’m so tired of the sexualization of women and of women feeling like they have to resort to sex to be valued whereas with men I just think you’re ridiculous if you do it but don’t see it as a sign of oppression. Although that may also be a double standard against men and an erroneous/naïve omission of the reality that men are also feeling the pressure to sell themselves as sexual beings to succeed…although I don’t really think they feel it as strongly as women, that pressure may be mounting in some arenas.

So we both came to the conclusion that we had this double standard in the way we would react to the female senator as opposed to the male senator. Whatever way we sought to explain our thinking, it wouldn’t change the fact that we were judging them differently although they were hypothetically doing the same thing. So the question is why? Why do we have this double standard in our minds even though we both recognize it as such?

A while back on this blog, the question was raised in a couple of comments about what the impact of greater participation for women in science might be. I think it’s actually part of a larger question underlying several conversations on the blog: To what extent are women different from men in ways that might make their contributions to social processes and structures different from the contributions of men?

This question isn’t really my favorite because, as Nava put it recently, I am not too concerned about whether or not there are preexisting differences between men and women that lead them to act differently. But in recent weeks my studies have really led me to concentrate on the question of how participation in science — specifically who participates — shapes the work that is done.

It turns out that there are people saying some really interesting things on the subject. I have had the opportunity to read about a number of examples where assumptions about gender have seeped into science work and shaped the theories that were developed: theories that our early human ancestors came to walk on two feet because men needed to hold tools to hunt; theories that among monkeys, chimps, and other primates, the actions of men are most important to determining what happens in the group, suggesting that it is only “natural” that the same be true for humans; theories that the highest stage of moral development consists of decision-making on the basis of an appreciation for universal rights, and research that suggests that women tend to demonstrate this “highest stage” less often than men. My favorite example of a theory influenced by gender bias is the following, pointed out by a woman named Emily Martin.

Martin examines the story of conception. We all know it, right? Scientific fact learned in school. Many tiny sperm travel through the female reproductive system until they come upon a patiently waiting egg. The strongest and most capable sperm beats out the others, powerfully burrows through the outer layers of egg and badda bing – there you have an adorable little zygote. Sound like anything else you’ve heard? Emily Martin compares this explanation to a fairy tale: the fragile damsel of an egg, waiting for her existence to take on meaning with the arrival of a strong, determined sperm. It’s an entertaining comparison, but her analysis of the language used in textbooks and science journals to describe the actions of the sperm and the egg are quite compelling:

It is remarkable how “femininely” the egg behaves and how “masculinely” the sperm. The egg is seen as large and passive. It does not move or journey, but passively “is transported,” “is swept,” or even “drifts” along the fallopian tubes. In utter contrast, the sperm are small, “streamlined,” and invariably active. They “deliver” their genes to the egg, “activate the developmental program of the egg,” and have a “velocity” that is often remarked upon. Their tails are “strong” and efficiently powered… “with a whiplashlike motion and strong lurches” they can “burrow through the egg coat” and “penetrate” it. (Martin, 1991, 489)

Even more interestingly, later research in biology found that sperm actually have very little forward force and that the egg has a much greater role in binding the two together. Yet, quite strikingly, the language employed by the authors of such findings often continued to portray the sperm as the active party that penetrates and fertilizes. It seems that perceived gender roles first made it difficult for scientists to see what was happening in conception, and then after certain discoveries, it was still difficult to move past certain ways of talking.

A few final examples of how gender might affect scientific work: One female physicist I read remarked on how the culture of physics might be different with more female participation (generally only 10-20% of physicists at the moment), as the culture currently relies heavily on self-promotion, which she argues has been difficult for the female physicists she has known. In the social sciences, academics identifying as feminists have made many contributions to discussions of research methods, pushing for methods that try to diffuse power relations, that pay more attention to diversity among research participants, and that are directed towards responding to human needs.

These academics aren’t suggesting that the biological differences between men and women lead to differences in contributions to science. But they are asserting that greater participation of women in science may bring in new perspectives and draw attention to ways that previous theories and methods were based on incorrect assumptions or limited understandings. The same, I think, is true regarding the participation of people from diverse nationalities and cultural traditions. Examining reality from more and more diverse standpoints holds the potential to generate greater insights into the workings of that reality.

I share these discussions from the field of science studies as a part of my own effort to engender equality by slowly learning to participate in relevant discourses and share insights between conversations. In the readings I have done over the past several weeks, I have found people saying a number of interesting things about the role of gender in science. As I have been working on organizing my thoughts in relation to this literature, I’ve been thinking about the importance of really listening to what others are saying, trying to identify the underlying assumptions that shape their logic, and reflecting on ways that insights that I have gained from other conversations—such as discussions here regarding the Advancing Towards Equality document—might offer points that contribute to moving the discourse ahead. In the case of the discussion on gender in science that I have shared here, I deeply appreciate the insights I find in that conversation; at the same time, I hear in the discussions points that I find rather limited, for example, assumptions that efforts to integrate knowledge from different sources will necessarily lead to the oppression of some types of knowledge. Many of the authors whose analysis I value tend to recommend as a solution separate sciences for different social groups; but these for me call to mind warnings of a “deeply fragmented social reality” that come from “narrowly identifying with particular physical or social characteristics and placing them at the center of our understanding of self and other” found in the Advancing Towards Equality document. Somewhere in this interplay of diversity and oneness I feel there might be a space for insights from these two conversations to be brought together to illuminate one another.

I think we’ve all been in situations in which a conversation takes an unexpected turn. I humbly offer the following one such example:

Leslie: “Hey, we should go eat at that restaurant over there.”

Ron: “Which one are you talking about, there are like three different restaurants in this area.”

L: “The one with the two girls standing in front of it…”

R: “What two girls? Oh you mean that one with the brown hair and her fat blonde friend? Yeah we should go there, I love that place.

L: “Fat? Why did you just call her fat? She’s not fat, that’s so mean.”

R: “Oh I’m sorry, I forgot who I was talking to. Sensitive audience.”

L: “What do you mean sensitive audience? Just because I don’t think you should call people fat doesn’t mean I’m especially sensitive.”

R: “No I just mean… I get it… women and their weight, its sensitive, I get it.

L: “Women and their weight? Me finding your comments on the way that woman looks offensive has nothing to do with being female. It’s just plain rude. Not to mention that insinuating that I have a problem with your comments because I’m a woman and therefore sensitive about my weight is not only cliché but kind of sexist.”

R: “Sexist?! I’m not sexist. You’re blowing this whole thing way out of proportion. Wow, way to make it a gender thing. I cannot believe you just called me sexist. You know, I’m not even hungry anymore. Let’s just go home.”

And just like that Ron cuts off the conversation. Once the dreaded term “sexist” comes out, the conversation is pretty much dead. Sexist is just about one of the worst terms you can call someone (add to that racist, homophobe, among others). No one wants to be associated with a manner of thinking or behavior that is largely considered offensive and outdated. Once that term in uttered from one person to another, all conversation around the issue that caused the term to be brought up in the first place is over. In this case Ron, who made the “sexist” remark, no longer wants to discuss the issue just as Leslie really wants to make her point.

And that’s a shame. The reality of the world many people live in is that sexism (and other isms) no longer linger out in the open, easily identifiable and agreed upon by all, but rather sexism lives in the shadows, ingrained in certain behaviors and thought patterns. It’s ironic that as more work has been done to bring about the equality of women and men, it has become harder to have honest conversations about those issues and attitudes that continue to promote misogynistic and sexist thought. It’s almost impossible to have an open and honest conversation about the problems that continue to plague the fight for gender equality without someone feeling defensive and wanting to wish it away.

A similar issue can be seen around the birther movement in the United States. Many people believe that the push for Barack Obama to release his birth certificate is born out of racism, a desire to attribute an otherness to the first African American president. Yet if you read any comment sections on the numerous opinion pieces that have been written on the subject, you have many individuals who are quick to assert that racism no longer exists, that black people are trying to make an issue out of nothing and that blacks are really the ones that are racist against whites. The validity of those arguments are inconsequential. The problem is that by being so quick to make those arguments, the conversation is being shut down and those who feel marginalized are being told to keep their opinions to themselves, echoing a history of being silenced.

Honestly in the above situation, both Leslie and Ron are limiting the possibility of open dialogue. Ron is defensive and therefore not willing to listen while Leslie has thrown out labels rather than creating a space for conversation to flow.

In situations of perceived racism and sexism, we aren’t all going to agree on the specifics of the case, but we have to be able to discuss it. If we’re trying to create a world in which the oppressive and domineering forces that have for so long plagued human history become a thing of the past, then we have to be able to understand each other. One way of doing this is by listening to other people’s experiences. In doing so, we have to allow people to feel their feelings – this way we validate their reality. It’s only through the process of listening to others’ sorrows and experiences that we can create a common foundation; that we begin to see reality and truth as one. And perhaps once voices can be heard we can move past these labels which so often gloss over the full weight of the situation and only create greater distinction where there could, in fact, be inclusion.

A few weeks ago, a group of friends and I got into a discussion about how we would define a man and a woman. While sipping our cups of coffee, we each took turns describing our idea of a man and a woman. It wasn’t an easy question to answer, the five minute silence that followed made that quite clear. Stuck between the decision to make an easy joke or the desire to be politically correct, our thoughts were slow to form. After listening to a few of my friends definitions, I felt pretty confident in what I had come up with. Just as I was about to speak, another friend explained that he thought a woman was someone who was elegant and sophisticated. I generally have a very hard time keeping whatever I’m thinking in my head from being expressed on my face but I’m quite sure this time was worse than ever. Elegant and sophisticated? Images of 1950’s housewives crept into my head. A stay at home mom who bakes cookies in pearl necklaces, that’s what a woman was? I also thought if that is the case, I am clearly not a woman. Sophistication and eloquence are not the first two words someone would use to describe me. As I continued to ponder this definition of womanhood, I began to compare it what other people around the circle had said. It slowly became clear to me just how much our backgrounds and social environments shaped our opinions.

The document calls on us to see the equality of women and men as a “fundamental truth”, not just a condition to achieve for the good of society. I think this requires us to question and be aware of the guiding forces that try to shape our conceptions of gender. But where do these notions of gender come from? The document also explains that men and women have physical differences that inform some aspect of how they experience the world but that in their qualities and capacities they are without distinction. What happens when our physical differences and the experiences formed from them overshadow our capabilities? Do you ever feel this way?

How can we think of the equality of women and men as a fundamental truth when our definition of a woman and a man are so often formed on false images fed to us by our social surroundings? How can we adopt equality into our thinking so that it can be expressed in practice?

It may be worthwhile to explore where we get these conceptions of what constitutes a man and what constitutes a woman over the next two weeks (until the next part of the document is posted).

Advertisements

Get Updated!

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Welcome

At the core of this blog is the document “Advancing towards the Equality between Women and Men” prepared by the Institute for Studies in Global Prosperity. However, engendering equality is not just a catchy name, it’s also a process we are all engaged in. In order to give us inspiration to be working towards engendering equality this blog tries to create a space in which actions and reflections are shared by individuals on the promotion of the equality of women and men within their social space.